Quote from: Benoist;294379On a small scale, it is possible. There are new experiments on this front, like patron system of Wolfgang Baur, or Monte Cook's DungeonADay.com, which are basically services that provide maximum returns from few clients with minimal production costs. These are interesting venues in this regard.

Interesting, yes, but not viable for the up-and-coming game designer. Both Wolfgang and Monte are well-known names in gaming circles; it is no surprise that they can do that sort of thing. Could a no-name do the same? Would it be doable in a different format or approach?

QuoteIf anything, Fight On! and Knockspell are another experiment occuring right now on the "old school" side of things. If these mags are viable over the long term, and if the whole retroclone thing doesn't turn into a supplement mill meanwhile, we might have winners on our hands, but it's impossible to say right now.

Hrm, I'm not familiar with either of those, but fair enough.

I'm not really sure what to make of the retroclone phenomenon. It seems rather strange to me that these games even survive - if they're clones, why aren't their players just playing the originals? I realize that there are some differences, and perhaps those differences are the key, but the whole thing still seems rather strange to me.

QuoteIt's a middle ground, yes. As for whether it's enough, I'd have the tendency to answer "if it makes profit enough to make decent returns for the company, then yes, it is enough".

Hmm, fair enough. I suppose WotC's supposed mimicry of this process - with the idea of releasing one campaign setting a year, for 4e - would seem to imply that it is working, at least to some extent.

Quote from: jeff37923;294334I'm also a fan of published adventures. The best ones give value added by including a new monsters, magic items, equipment, or whatever without forcing you to expend large amounts of cash for a splatbook (like AD&D modules of past, Dungeon Crawl Classics and Paizo's Gamemastery series of modules for 3.x).

Agreed.

I don't run many published adventures, but I love strip-mining them for ideas.

Quote from: Imperator;294336I feel that well done adventures have an additional benefit: they give gamers some common experiences to talk about.

Absolutely.

With respect to in the initial question, I can't speak to the publishing side of things, 'cause I don't really follow it closely enough to have an informed opinion, but from the consumer side, I'm torn. On the one hand, I love the fact that the entire canon of Flashing Blades - a core rule book, an expansion supplement, an "adventure path," and two collections of short adventures - fits into a standard plastic report cover.

On the other hand, I own roughly a displacement ton of books, magazines, and games for Traveller. I pull in material from as many sources as I can, because populating an entire universe is a big task, and every starship and alien critter and interesting piece of tech is helpful in bringing the sprawling setting to life.

So, I have to equivocate a bit: some games work well with just a small selection of materials, and others work better with a supply of new stuff.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294382I'm not really sure what to make of the retroclone phenomenon. It seems rather strange to me that these games even survive - if they're clones, why aren't their players just playing the originals? I realize that there are some differences, and perhaps those differences are the key, but the whole thing still seems rather strange to me.

These games "survive" because the overwhelming majority of them are free and done by people whose livelihood does not depend on their "sales"; plus they are available on the net for download ad infinitum.

As for why aren't people playing the originals...well, they are. At least those that have them and wish to run them. The problem is the originals are OOP, hard to find and usually expensive when you do. And the PDFs copies you can obtain from DrivethroughRPG or RPGNow aren't free. And a few of the original aren't available in PDF copies at all. Even if someone has all the originals they require, the books might be in less than optimal condition and being collector items some players might be loathe to use them when they have a fac simile avaiable.

The retro-clones are also shinier and better presented, striving for more clarity and accessibility than the originals (in some cases rule issues have been dealt with). Some of those games were made decades ago, printing and editing technology has come a long way since.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375Ah, but this inevitably would lead to something akin to how 2e ended, would it not, what with attempting to support dozens of settings? It may not begin that way, but wouldn't it probably go that route?

I think that there is a common misconception about how AD&D2 ended along with TSR that has more to do with Lorraine Williams and piss-poor business decisions and looting the company than it does with a gamer fanbase divided by settings.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375Or would something more akin to how White Wolf is handling the various World of Darkness lines work - one setting a year? I don't know personally if that approach is working or not, but would it be something worth exploring? Even if it is working, is there still a better way to go about it?

I'd have to look more at White Wolf in depth before giving an answer. I just don't know the particulars.

 

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375But look at what Dragon became, after time - just another splat, essentially, just smaller and periodical. Sure, there is usually some non-mechanical content, but in my experience, most of it is crunch.

Dungeon is basically the same thing, just replacing "splat" with "module."

And is that necessarily a bad thing?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375Does it have to be this way? What causes powercreep? Is it due to division of labor, as - after the core of a system is released - the original design team separates to work on different and varying projects, or - perhaps worse - is set into a management-esque position, simply acting as oversight above less-talented and knowledgeable designers, which causes powercreep to sneak in through the bureaucratic cracks?

No. GMs who are too permissive about what they allow in their campaigns. I've never heard of the "division of labor" arguement but I don't think that is quite it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375Disgruntled players is something we'd want to avoid, so I guess the question then is - why do splats contribute to GM burnout? Is it due to the nature of how splats are written, what with usually being of rather significant size and focused nature? Is it because of the notion that splats tend to be mechanically questionable, and so GMs feel it necessary to hunt for broken mechanics?

By providing material that may or may not fit into the campaign playstyle of the game being run, but the GM should have to read and figure out where that will fit, if at all, out of consideration for his players. It is extra homework for the GM to do. The less extra added work for the GM that may not be beneficial to a campaign in progress is good.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375I'm still not convinced that periodicals would be better than splats or modules. They're smaller and more easily-digested, yes, but I'm not sure that that is sufficient to overcome the fact that they're simply splats and modules in convincing bite-sized disguises.

Sometimes it is the size of the bite that determines whether or not you choke on the food.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294373This splits the fanbase into competing segements, though. They foudn this out the hard way.

Then why publish more than one setting at all?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294373...Unless the entire system itself is simplified and carefully rebalanced, a philosophy of 'everything is allowed' is embraced from the origin of design, and there's some kind of method for updating electronically when errata does occur.

Can you see that they have thought this through already?

So the expectation is that since everything is Core, that the consumer should buy everything? That seems to ask a little too much from the consumer.

Quote from: jeff37923;294369So you are saying that to have all the Core materials for D&D 4E you must also subscribe to DDI or else you will be missing something.

No, that not what being said. To put another way mechanism offered by DDI solves some of the problems of having multiple core books/supplement  as the software is automatically updated with everything.

Along with the rules being printed out when you print out the character sheet with the power cheat sheet. One advantage of an exception based rule system is the ability to do this without needing the actual rule book to look up stuff in.

This "advantage" can be transferred to other rule systems. I been making cheat sheets for GURPS for years. However few RPG Companies have the deep pockets of Wizards. Of course even with deep pockets there been issues with Wizards delivering on what they planned for DDI.

However sometime during the next two decades there will be tabletop RPGs that are played around a table and there are no printed books in sight. DDI is one of the many technologies that foreshadows this.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294373...Unless the entire system itself is simplified and carefully rebalanced, a philosophy of 'everything is allowed' is embraced from the origin of design, and there's some kind of method for updating electronically when errata does occur.

Can you see that they have thought this through already?

This is hogwash.They will put in a Black Lotus in or a Time Twister at some point and go oops. Plus unexpected synergies will arise between powers making more oops and requiring fixes. All of this occurred throughout the history of Magic the Gathering.

This is assuming that they don't deliberately design things that are truly are better choice or things that are worst choices. The reasoning behind this would be to customize 4e to some setting or fantasy sub genre. For example a world were paladins and clerics are favored over wizards. Or a world with different classes of wizard like a hedge wizard is inferior to a wizard.

To be fair Wizards would probably mark those additions with a non-core or optional flag.





An that is

Quote from: estar;294430No, that not what being said. To put another way mechanism offered by DDI solves some of the problems of having multiple core books/supplement  as the software is automatically updated with everything.

Along with the rules being printed out when you print out the character sheet with the power cheat sheet. One advantage of an exception based rule system is the ability to do this without needing the actual rule book to look up stuff in.

This "advantage" can be transferred to other rule systems. I been making cheat sheets for GURPS for years. However few RPG Companies have the deep pockets of Wizards. Of course even with deep pockets there been issues with Wizards delivering on what they planned for DDI.

However sometime during the next two decades there will be tabletop RPGs that are played around a table and there are no printed books in sight. DDI is one of the many technologies that foreshadows this.

So what you have described sounds like an internet based, online version of the supplement mill. The only thing that has changed is the medium of presentation.

Quote from: estar;294436This is hogwash.They will put in a Black Lotus in or a Time Twister at some point and go oops. Plus unexpected synergies will arise between powers making more oops and requiring fixes. All of this occurred throughout the history of Magic the Gathering.

Well, I agree. They've actually done this already, though:

Veterans Armor (as an example) was oopsed. Now if you check it in the Compendium, it does not recover a daily power. Same with Cascade of Blades. If you add it to your character, you get the fixed version. The builder actually makes a little cheat sheet for every one of your powers and things.

Since the errata is electronic, and feeds directly into the main tool for accessing it (other than the physical book), they've sort of created a system that allows things to get repaired pretty quickly.  

I like your Magic: The Gathering analogy and I think it is about as close as it gets: PHB2 is simply an extra set of cards. And obviously you do not need a copy of every single card in order to play.

Quote from: jeff37923;294361That is a question for the Marketting and Sales department of the publisher. If a book is branded a Core Rulebook, then most player consumers will accept that it is indeed a Core Rulebook required for play.

I think you fail to really comprehend most gamers.  A certain group of gamers will immediately understand that the PHBII is not an essential product.  Another group will insist that it must be incorporated into the game, but they're the same people that think EVERYTHING should be considered an essential part of the rules; those annoying shitheads who try to force the GM to let them have Obscure Feat #876213 from the Book of Exalted Munchkinism just because it exists.
In either scenario, the idea that the name of the book itself somehow affects things directly seems wrongheaded to me.  I suppose that, at best, you could argue that calling it a PHB means that the shiteheads will be able to bulwark their argument that the GM "must" accept it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294373...Unless the entire system itself is simplified and carefully rebalanced, a philosophy of 'everything is allowed' is embraced from the origin of design, and there's some kind of method for updating electronically when errata does occur.

Can you see that they have thought this through already?

That sounds really, really improbable to me, and stinks of the "Party line". You honestly believe that they'll be able to release 50 books worth of rules without the system collapsing into hopeless min-maxing and powergaming, because these guys are all geniuses who are making sure the system is "Perfect"?
Please.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;294377Welcome GnomeWorks!

I think that White Wolf with its five-supplements games/one game a year publishing scheme represents a middle ground between "supplement mill" and "tons of games produced" (which wouldn't work, see TSR campaign settings in the 1990's for that).

They have an overarching brand, "World of Darkness", and produce one game a year under that label. Very productive IP under this label, like Vampires, will get a game for which supplements keep being produced as long as they sell, while other, fringe games, like Promethean, only got 5 supplements and that's it (it all started with Orpheus, and it was a resounding success).

Ironic, given that WW was one of the companies most responsible for the full on "endless splatbook, endless metaplot" model of supplement-mill design.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;294499Ironic, given that WW was one of the companies most responsible for the full on "endless splatbook, endless metaplot" model of supplement-mill design.

RPGPundit

For sure. The irony isn't lost on me either.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294382Interesting, yes, but not viable for the up-and-coming game designer. Both Wolfgang and Monte are well-known names in gaming circles; it is no surprise that they can do that sort of thing. Could a no-name do the same? Would it be doable in a different format or approach?

Well, these are experiments, as I said. As such, it probably only works for names in the industry. For now. Already, some small publishers try to replicate the patronage template, like Rite Publishing, for instance. The more these things are accepted as "normal", the more likely they will be used by lambda gamers. The "names" of the industry are jump-starting new business practices. These practices later rise or fall on their own merit, I believe.

Quote from: RPGPundit;294498That sounds really, really improbable to me, and stinks of the "Party line". You honestly believe that they'll be able to release 50 books worth of rules without the system collapsing into hopeless min-maxing and powergaming, because these guys are all geniuses who are making sure the system is "Perfect"?
Please.

RPGPundit

I have no idea about perfect, but I do believe in functional. I actually believe in allowing everything, yes.